beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the separate sheet claim column and each of them from January 4, 2018.
Reasons
1. In fact, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 1-33, Gap evidence 2-5, Gap evidence 6-1-4, Gap evidence 7-12, Gap evidence 13-1-5, Gap evidence 13-5, and the overall purport of the pleadings.
The Plaintiffs are owners of each of the AT detacheds (hereinafter “AT”), who own AT detacheds (the Plaintiffs are sole owners of each detached house from Plaintiff 1 to 22, and the co-owners holding 1/2 of each of the respective detacheds from Plaintiff 23 to 44). The Defendant is the seller of each of the instant AT, and the Korea Development Corporation is the Korea Development Corporation.
B. From September 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant AT from around February 2016, and occupied it from February 2016. As a result of the inspection, the Plaintiffs confirmed that there was a phenomenon due to the lack of heat construction on the roof home line (Gutter and the building’s roof rainwater from the roof rainwater).
The plaintiffs are seeking only the defects that occurred in the above roof Homeheading part as the cause of the claim, and the other defects are subsequently brought a separate suit.
C. The Home Development Co., Ltd. did not construct a joint board inside the home line side and the lower part of the home line, and due to defects such as the frame supporting the Aarro-resistant external wall moving from the top end of the outer wall to the lower part of the outer wall, there was a phenomenon in the lower part of the home line, and resulting in a number of leakages in the entrance, the wall, the window, etc.
As a result of the appraisal, in order to repair the defects of the home passage, it was confirmed that each amount in the claim column of the attached list should be equivalent to the cost.
2. According to the above facts of the judgment, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages pursuant to Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act as a seller of the AT of this case, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages, respectively.